Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:26:56 AM
I have been trying to figure out for many years why the proposition that 'the public owns the air waves" is not a more contentious subject. Both the right and the left seem to be unified in accepting this premise, accepting that the government has the right not only to issue licenses, but to transfer those licenses on a whim and to apply whatever rules it deems fit to the holders of licenses.
The argument usually advanced is that broadcast frequencies are limited, so we need to have an administrative body. However, this makes little sense. Every good exists only in limited quantity. There is a limited quantity of copper and corn and DVDs and land, yet we allow private ownership of those resources. Land being perhaps the best example. Just like the airwaves, the borders of land are artificial constructs created by government decree, yet privately held, transferred and otherwise administered.
And that is my real question. Why can't the airwaves be administered privately? Why can't the government draw up geographical regions, and then create blocks of frequencies for each region. Those already holding licenses will be given ownership fo the frequencies they hold, the remained can then be either auctioned off, or distributed on a basis similar to the land grants of the 19th century, giving ownership to anyone who "squats" on a given frequency and makes some use of it for a set period of years.
Of course there are those who will oppose this, and I can think of two reasons, one which politicians might admit and one they certainly would not.
First, those who think the government needs to control what the public sees, be they crusaders against obscenity or PC zealots, will likely not want to give up public ownership, as control of licensing is their strongest tool in controlling content. It also is their justification for their control of content, as "the public owns the airwaves" so content should not "offend the public's sensibilities". However, if we privatize broadcast channels, then this argument will be greatly weakened, as the public no longer owns the airwaves, and any argument for censorship will have to be phrased explicitly in terms of restricting what people can do with their private property, rather than being fought out of public view in licensing hearings.
The second reason private ownership will be opposed is that it will not allow the government to fill their coffers. Oh, if they auction off unused bandwidth as I suggested, they will get a fortune, but they will never be able to sell them again. However, if they only "license" the airwaves, they can periodically seize and reassign the bands, as they did with this move to digital television, freeing up a large number of analog bands to sell to the cell phone and other wireless carriers. Of course, none of them own these bands, they simply hold them at the government's pleasure, not only allowing the government to reassign them again and again, but also allowing individual politicians to extort fortunes from lobbyists interested in obtaining or keeping licenses for their clients.
Not that they would ever admit the second.
There are a few other reasons some would oppose privatization. Public television would have to sink or swim on its own merits, for example. And some politicians simply oppose private property on general principle. But by and large, the move would be opposed for the two big reasons listed above. Without "public airwaves", the government loses one of its best tools for dabbling in censorship, and also one of its better cash cows.
So, much as it makes sense, I doubt I will live to see an age when the "public" doesn't own the airwaves.
POSTSCRIPT
I mentioned the negative consequences of this theory in my posts "
What We Deserve" and "
Inescapable Logic".